skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I sometimes fantasize about disabling Issues for one of my more popular GitHub repos, but since I also have a disturbing number of users who find my email from early git logs and send me emails like "why didn't you respond to me on github", I keep them open in the hopes that it prevents more people from doing the same.

That being said, I'd pay good money to never have to see another person submit another "bug" report where they remove all contents from the bug template I created and just write "why doesn't X do Y. plz fix" followed by an "any updates?" comment <24 hours later.

I wouldn't say the whole thing has necessarily led to burnout, since I still enjoy working on the project, but it has led to me never logging into GitHub and turning off all notifications.
> Maybe blindly adopting permissive open source licenses to invite more corporate ownership isn't the right answer.

What's the question exactly? Sustainable FOSS development?

Earning nothing while working on a FOSS project that has no way to ever make a developer salary because it can't be used by the people with the money, due to the copyleft license does not seem to be the "right answer" either.
The American Revolution used the social media of the time, what do you think the federalist papers were all about?

A lot of the established press was against it and they did constantly published “hit pieces”.

History is written by the victors if the American Revolution didn’t succeed the US would likely eventually gained independence but it would’ve been a commonwealth nation. The Revolution isn’t the reason why you have freedom today, Canada is free so is the UK. The world would look quite different than it is today but not as different as you might think.
It is the hedge funds that are inflating the stock price because they have to cover their short positions. This is a short squeeze.
They are naked shorting. This is why wsb is so eager to destroy them.
Yeah, so... what? Which laws dictate that stock needs to be traded at “fair price”?
By "discourages commercial use", I refer to the very-real-today fact that plenty of organizations won't touch GPL or especially AGPL code because of the copyleft restrictions. This is largely the same for SSPL.

Amazon could use SSPL-licensed Elasticsearch on AWS, if they wanted to open source AWS, and they'd probably still make bank on it. But they don't want to, so hence going to SSPL, like GPL, discourages their use.
Here [0] is an example of someone putting inordinate amount of effort to take down a tiny mastodon instance. If it would have been possible to take over a domain in a similar manner - it would have happened too.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21719793
WHATWG review draft of HTML and DOM endorsed as W3C Recommendations
>I'm tired of fake Economics where the value of a company or the product is not made from the real value of it

I still don't understand how Tesla is valued so high when they're still figuring out panel gaps.
> Every purchase, is a market manipulation by the definition.

Well, I don't think this would hold up in court. Both the SEC and courts have made a distinction in the past between "real demand" (i.e. demand motivated because you think the stock is undervalued) and "artificial demand" (i.e. demand that is not based on any underlying analysis, but instead motivated because you intend to trigger other market mechanisms, including coverings of short positions). Like most legal definitions, the actual definition is hazy, and courts may have established legal tests. Read Matt Levine for a nuanced analysis [1].

Again, not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/will-w...
Civil Liberties don't exist if you leave them to the public sector. The US Government hosts and produces virtually nothing on it's own and just about everything you interact with is run or produced by a corporation.

If you leave the responsibility of Free Speech to the Free Market then you end up having freedom of press only for the people who own one.
Not that I condone this type of market manipulation, but I do wonder what is the end game for all these wsb buyers - the price will come down eventually right? What will happen when they try to cash out?
It's not market manipulation if it's true.
Comparing your bar/house to a massive social platform like Reddit is absurd beyond belief.
The videos all seem to have far more dislikes than likes (very different from the article).

They actually seem to be quite aggressively disliked, disproportionately from standard polling anyway. Maybe there is something nefarious happening, but not at YouTube.
Nobody on wsb went out to make a 'killing', or at least not in the way you think. You don't know the half of it.
I also want to point out that there's an emotional aspect to this.

Lots of open source is done as a passion project, and passion is a notoriously fickle beast. Things that inspire people to work on passion projects - a sense of ownership, velocity (no need for meetings and jira et al when it's just you. 100% efficient communication!), "shipping"/accomplishment, pride and respect - are all going to be really vulnerable to having to share headspace and ownership with someone else.

I'm personally feeling this. I have a project I'm working on for my homelab that I think other homelabbers, and maybe even some SMBs, will be interested. And I want to give back to the community / have no qualms about someone "stealing" my code. I have an AGPLv3 sticker on my laptop. But the main thing giving me pause is - "but what if people are like 'neat, now please do this feature next!'". Then I'm thinking about it and worrying about disappointing users. And plus, we know that "please do this feature next" is absolutely the *nicest* way that that request will ever be phrased on the internet.

I honestly would feel better if github had a way to let me say:

1. Here's the code, but please don't fork it (but leave the fork button functional. I don't want to actually stop anyone. I just want them to know what I won't be super thrilled.)

2. Please only open issues or PRs for small fixes. An extra if-statement, etc. Please don't add features or redesign anything or "fix my code" at a cosmetic or architecture level.

I know this sounds kinda whiny and entitled and anti-free-software, but I do think it's real and respectful from a human perspective. Locke said that anything you put effort into, you feel ownership of. And by that logic, if someone puts effort into something you currently own "100%" of, they're going to feel some sort of ownership too and you'll feel some part of loss of ownership.
Dogecoin Surges as Reddit Traders Push to Make It the Crypto GameStop
> Market manipulation. Loosely, market manipulation happens when you artificially influence the price of a stock, resulting in a personal gain. Buying stock with the intention of causing a short squeeze can be interpreted to fit that definition. I believe that WSB is creating artificial demand to try to "screw over" certain institutional investors. I am not a lawyer; this is not a legal interpretation.

Bill Ackman went on CNBC last year in near tears saying the end was coming, helping stocks continue their nose dive...all the while he was buying tons and tons of stocks which he turned into billions. How is that allowed but people on a message board sharing positions and high number of short floats isn't? There is literally, and has been for a long time, a website that tells you the short interest in a stock. It's sole purpose is to help people find short squeezes. That's why you have stats like "days to cover."
> the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence?

I think creating and using decentralized alternatives beyond the control of the state and affiliated corporations is a much better tool for creating lasting change. Violent revolutions tend to just replace (or restyle) the ruling class without significant changes to their behavior.
Parent isn't claiming GME is "real" economics. Parent is claiming GME will help pull down our current fake system, and help the middle and lower classes receive fair compensation from the system. Whether this approach works or not, I don't know. But the status quo isn't tenable for a democratic society.

This chart says it all:

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
Once again, trying to make this topic about you personally doesn’t work, doesn’t validate lazily considered scorn, and won’t validate doubling down on either.
There are still some restrictions, and a good summary here: https://worldwaterreserve.com/rainwater-harvesting/is-it-ill....

When buying property, you may have agreed that you were not acquiring mineral rights, water rights, etc. and you still might have problems even in the absence of a government rule against it. I don't know how legitimate such claims are or how often they're successful, but I know someone who got legal nasty-grams from a land developer for doing it, and the property owner backed off when they saw the papers they had signed again.
Have you thought about having an application process to accept new members to the "core" team? The idea that people contribute isn't wrong in itself. It's usually the lack of commitment from the contributor that causes the stress on the maintainer side.
> the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence?

They do realize that and are confident that they will win. In the end it boils down to that.

In here we have a case of the wrong people succeeding at a game that de jure is supposed to be open to everyone but de facto is only open to the right people.
The little guys are also playing the pyramiding scheme by buying the OTM calls and puts like the big boys and cooperate with their schemes. That is the only difference. The OTM options are now low hanging fruits that can be grabbed with pump and dump given sufficient/willing and educated audience.
Oh I misheard/misremembered!! Thanks!
Market manipulation to prop up Hedge Funds. So much for "Robinhood".
> Human brains have the same problems and seem to be fairly popular.

Not only that but I'm sure there's a usecase where they are more suitable, we just haven't found it.
Personally, I am not a fan of shorting but in addition to "liquidity" there is also "price discovery". Using excess leverage to short and floating 150% of the shares short is potentially a problem but the same would be true if it was the reverse (ie. buy or long positions). Price manipulation is the real problem here.

Given more capital and a reasonable amount of time, the short sellers in this instance will be correct. The value of the GameStop stock using commonly accepted valuation methods of our day is much lower than $300 or even $100 per share. Unfortunately brick-and-mortar companies with declining revenue and no visible growth prospects are valued differently than high flying tech stocks. Keep in mind that I understand the rules of the game dictate that shorts can be squeezed and the share does not have to trade at the commonly accepted valuation.
It prevents more people from piling onto the short squeeze?

(It also prevents J. Naive Trader from buying into this train wreck and losing a bucket of money when the bottom falls out, which it will.)
>The language encourages a style of thinking that fits with databases and it being a separate language makes it clear that there's a boundary there, that its not the same as application code.

The separation is orthogonal to the data access style used, and you really have to make sure the engineers you're working with understand separation of concerns. I have seen many applications with controllers filled with loads of raw SQL, just as I have seen them filled with lots of ORM query building. If the programmers don't get why that's bad, they will do the wrong thing with whatever tools they have in front of them.
I am one of those that keeps everything in tabs (currently 856 open tabs in 31 windows on my MacBook)

And tabs are imho the perfect abstraction. This is misguided effort.

The issue is with the way multiple browser windows are managed. When I have many tabs I must have a way to manage many windows as well. Visually!

Whether these can and should be improved on a browser level I can’t say.

MacOS is already very very good at this and much better than anything else

I extensively use app expose and spaces to visually and spatially find what I need and structure my environment by projects and topics. I have everything I need exactly where I left it, together with all other applications and information that was related to it

Adding more management features should not be the responsibility of the browser. That’s why I‘ve never been a fan of any of the popular tab management extensions or browser features
IMO the same is true with mask mandates. Businesses probably fear lawsuits from employees and customers who might get sick, and blame them for not doing enough. Sometimes a business does something that it claims is in the public interest but in reality is to protect them; i.e. Green Washing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
Hedgefunds are real Robinhood customers buying their order flow. They go belly up Robinhood looses their actual source of income plus Robinhood lent them a ton of stock to short so they are on the hook too.
I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make. The point wasn't that share price is completely meaningless, the point was that it's meaningless without more information.

A share of AAPL now costs $139, a share of GOOG costs $1860. How would you compare the two companies based on that? How does the price of a single share relate to whether or not the company has positive or negative earnings?
Incorrect. GME is still heavily shorted by hedge funds.
>> only tool left to common people is violence?

I am genuinely interested in the physicality of how that would play out. A mob with pitchforks makes a run at a Facebook HQ. Do they kidnap employees until they find one with the access to re-initialize the account? I guess they would have to keep the hostages forever, else the accounts be disabled again the next day. Do they setup a camp outside with the declared intent to launch an attack should certain accounts not get enough likes? How long could that last?
Or do they break into a datacenter and attempt to do it themselves? I'm reminded of that iMac scene in Zoolander.
Or the spreads/volatility of GME is big/frothy enough that they can make much more per trade
Well, to be fair - they are at least allowing sales, just not purchases.
For legacy ICE car companies, there is an additional headwind with which they must battle: their dealer network is far less incentivized to sell electric vehicles due to the lower long-term revenues based on service and maintenance. Dealers have a say in what is promoted and sold. If they have two otherwise equivalent models, one ICE and one electric, they are far more incentivized to sell the ICE version to lock in those lucrative service plans at time of sale.
So, traditional auto manufactures not only have to catch up in charging infrastructure, they also have to figure out how to change the dealer incentive model to help move units.
I get the impression the mods on WSB aren't really leading the whole thing, just trying to moderate a particularly hard to moderate community.
You are exactly right. And you can see the same thing with the Internet as a network as well as with Bitcoin.

Both of those can, by design, be run by individuals and independent entities. However, in the end most people end up preferring to delegate the administration of their share of the network to someone else, either out of ignorance or convenience.
The HFTs are making a killing from the volitility.

Slippage like this is their dream. It's the best possible scenario for HFT
White supremacy is the new Jewish cabal
archive.org's first snapshot is from June 2001: https://web.archive.org/web/20010607155325/http://www.tamale...
The public wayback machine started in 2001, however, they started archiving in 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine
Ruby generally (I think? I haven't seen much of Ruby code) uses "@" instead of "self.", and "@@" instead of "ParticularClassName." (btw, "self.__class__" doesn't cut it), and it seems to produce no namespace pollution.
That is probably referring to options, not short sales. During a short squeeze the effect is basically the same, whoever sold "naked" call options will have to buy shares (or buy back the option, or buy some other option to offset the loss) to cover their position. Like short sellers, people who sell naked calls will start facing margin calls from their brokerage and will be forced to close the position at whatever price they can find (either for the options or the shares they would have to deliver if the option is exercised).
Let's pretend that Telegram servers and all your data is stored in Russia, regularly data-mined by the KGB, whatever.

The fact is that many Americans would prefer to have their data mined by the KGB than by the FBI.
It's definitely not 128k coins. When it was first created it was notable for having such a huge supply of coins that people could have silly fun with it and not care about the 'value' of it. That hasn't remained true, but it was the initial idea behind it, a joke coin people could give tons of coins to other people to for pennies.
It's also worth mentioning: perspective.

I can't find the link, but I read an article where a tech CEO was called to Washington to work with the government for something or other.

The one thing he noticed that stuck in my mind is

In the tech sector it's about:

what you CAN do

yet to politicians, the focus is on:

what you CAN NOT do

So maybe part of the solution is to point out the difference.
GME has been trading at $2 spreads. SPY trades at $0.01 spreads.
Same policy applies to paid Robinhood and other paid brokers.
Ultimately, a few medium-sized hedge funds were caught doing something stupid and the market has rightfully taught them a lesson. It's great that retail investors got in on a high-level play like this and made money.

Why is betting on the decline of an off-line video-game chain stupid? I'm surprised GameStop is even still in business.
>Yesterday, two of the big institutional investors decided to fold, effectively loosing 100% of their investments.

They can lose much more than the total value they initially invested into the shorts, since they have to buy back at several multiples of the price of the stock at the point they bought and they had heavy borrow costs too. That's why the hedge funds are at risk of going bankrupt - because they aren't only liable for the value they invested but they're liable for the whatever cost it takes to buy back the stocks they shorted.
I just made it show the player a toast/message to use their upgrades/skills/resource points on the bottom left, in addition to the message in "How to Play?" Hopefully people see that and it clears it up.
Do you not know the short-to-float context for GME? I suggest you read up on it; the retail movement isn't a pump-and-dump.
how come is this even legal

basically the system is telling us to do what they want of fuk off
I still have a wire recorder :) I expect to go through the electronics (old solid state components with leads soldered together since it was made prior to circuit boards) in some down time, which seems to keep getting postponed...
This is correct. The Democratic party has no interest whatsoever in helping people.
Lawyer. Lawyer. Lawyer.

If you have questions about your employment contract, spend a few bucks for an hour or two of legal consult who knows the laws in your jurisdiction.

If you have real questions, this is the (long term) inexpensive way to get things answered.
I am just going to leave this here:

https://www.sec.gov/oiea/Complaint.html
I understand what you mean, as it's pretty mainstream/typical, but "they don't want to be in the code hosting business" makes it sound like it's going to be a full time job which clearly isn't, and you get back the little time you've put in doing the upgrades everyday, every time you interact with your repo. But then again, the subject here is not "big companies", so, I'm not really sure how your story is related to the story we are discussing here.

As for "let the experts do that", you really make it sound like running a service on a linux box is something "for experts" which clearly is a fallacy. Unless you mean that "running nmap to check that your firewall works is something for experts", not sure where you place the bar for what you call "experts", is making a systemd service or timer or starting a container better left to "experts" ? I'm sincerely wondering what the criteria are in the definition of "expert" in the Hacker News standard.
No. He's not rallying people to buy TSLA and surge the price short term. He tweets other stupid things like claiming to take the company private at $420 and that the stock price is too high.
Long-term support for Linux 5.10 will stay two years unless companies use it
I'm not sure it does satisfy the 4 part test, specifically in:

(1) That the accused had the ability to influence market prices; (2) that the accused specifically intended to create or effect a price or price trend that does not reflect legitimate forces of supply and demand; (3) that artificial prices existed; and (4) that the accused caused the artificial prices.

It isn't clear that #2 is satisfied. Telling people that there is an opportunity for a short squeeze to occur is also not that different from normal technical analysis, which stock analyists do all the time. Even setting a price target is not illegal. Porsche did a short squeeze on VW and Elon is quite blatant about squeezing shorts in TSLA, and they've been fine despite profiting handsomely from it. Citron was clearly 'stating their opinion' on GME being worthless, but since they disclosed their position (short on GME), they are fine.

What typically makes it illegal is lying about your own stake, or prices, or data, or plans in an attempt to influence the market. Most smart analysts don't hold positions in what they are talking about, but some do, they disclose them, and they're good.

If someone makes a trade, makes it public, and tells everyone why - and they think it's a great idea - then it doesn't meet the test IMO.

Additionally for #3 - no one that I am aware of is using anything but public pricing data based on free and open market trading data, so it's hard to claim artificial prices existed. If someone has been publishing fake data (so claiming no short interest exists when it does, or more exists than does), then that would certainly check the box off. So far the only claims I've seen of that happening are in public financial analysis claims, not in the WSB data.

Also for #4 - It isn't clear there is any accused that checks off all 4 boxes, or a conspiracy between any individuals that could check off all 4 boxes. WSB isn't a single entity, and my guess is that none of the moderators on WSB are involved in this (if so, they are really dumb). WSB is regularly looked at for insider trading, and always comes out clean because they are a forum where people talk, they actively suppress anything that looks like a pump and dump (at least a normal one), etc.

edit: add a lot of info on the 4 point test
What did happen around 1979 to have such a clear change?
In a plea for accuracy, can we be specific about which type of Diabetes we are talking about? They are _very_ different, both in how they are caused and how they are managed.
Their margin requirement may be linked to the name so increasing the margin requirement to 100% would be a way to block the use of margin.